Same-sex marriage bill heads to Illinois state Senate floor

Comments (8)
KbUsch wrote:

Cardinal Francis George’s assertion that same-sex marriage undermines the “natural family” between a man and a woman is an empirical assertion that can be tested in the real world.

And nothing has shown it to be true and everything has shown it to be false. Why make such false assertions?

Jan 04, 2013 12:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
Azza9 wrote:

I have a ‘Why not’ stance on the gay marriage thing, that and I’m not religious so I have no vested interest in either supporting or denying gay marriage. There is no point in getting in the way of the dreams of two consenting adults who are not harming anyone in a real sense.

That being said I would not FORCE men of the cloth to perform gay marriages. Their views may be misguided and very bigoted (IMO at least). But they genuinely think / feel that gay marriage is wrong and will probably never change their mind. I don’t agree with these outdated religious views, but you can’t and shouldn’t force people to perform act/ services that are contrary to their beliefs.
At least if you want to pretend you live in a free country you don’t…

And in the end, do any homosexuals here really want their ceremony to be performed by someone who is silently wishing your union to fail. Who are only performing the ceremony because they where coerced by the government?..

And I’m sure that if you gave them choice to decline, you would still have a good amount of enlightened clergymen willing to perform the marriage. Not all theists are bigoted ignorami, heck some are even nice level headed people. (key word being ‘some’)

Jan 04, 2013 12:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
paulflorez wrote:

@Azza9

No church will be forced to perform same-sex marriages. The Illinois Constitution and the U.S. Constitution both have religious freedom protected in their respective bill of rights. There are still churches that refuse to marry interracial couples, and no one can use the law to force those churches to marry interracial couples. Repeating these religious freedom protections in the laws that restore the equal right of same-sex couples to marriage is purely symbolic.

No church has ever been forced to perform a same-sex marriage. There have been organizations which have been sued for refusing to rent a facility or provide a service as part of a same-sex wedding, but those organization have been organizations that received taxpayer funds. They were not forced to provide for a same-sex wedding, they simply were denied taxpayer funds if they did not follow public anti-discrimination laws. I mean, if you were a taxpayer who happened to be gay, and an organization that received some of your tax money refused to provide you with the same facilities or services that they provided to opposite-sex couples, wouldn’t you want your money back, so to speak? Once again, no church has ever been forced to perform a same-sex marriage.

The anti-gay groups claim they are the victims, but they’re not. The real reasons they are against restoring the right of same-sex couples to marry is
1) Because of animus they have towards gay people. In their own unique way, they hate gay people. They hate families headed by same-sex couples. They condemn gay people and their families every time they speak, and their desire is to have the force of the law behind that condemnation.
2) Because they want to continue to take taxpayer funds, including the taxes paid by Gay Americans, and then provide services to all Americans except those who are gay. Anti-gay hospitals want to take the taxes of Gay Americans but refuse to let those Americans visit their spouse in that hospital. Anti-gay adoption agencies want to take the taxes of Gay Americans and then refuse to place children in need of a home in the homes of those very Americans that are paying for the services. If you’re going to take taxpayer funds, should those funds not require that you obey public anti-discrimination laws? You can always choose to not take taxpayer funds, if your religious beliefs prevent you from doing so.

I belong to a Catholic Community which performs same-sex marriages. Many Episcopal churches and Lutheran churches perform same-sex marriages. There are a plethora of churches which marry same-sex couples, so why would anyone want to go to a church filled with nasty, judgmental people who despise them in order to wed? No one wants to do that.

This is about animus towards gay people in general, and money. The people who hate Gay Americans want to continue to use the power of the law to beat them up and be paid to do so using the very taxes that those Gay Americans pay. In essence, they’ll lose the power and control over the lives of Gay Americans that they’ve received from the government for decades. They claim that makes them victims, but in reality it grants Gay Americans equality and freedom they’ve been denied for a long time.

Jan 04, 2013 2:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
McBob08 wrote:

Lame excuses and puzzling fascism is all that the Republicans have to offer to explain their opposition to telling all Americans have the same marriage rights as anyone else. There is nothing religious about denying gay marriage; in fact, Christ tells us to judge not, lest we be judged. Frankly, these Republican crybabies don’t have a leg to stand on — there is absolutely no logical, reasonable, moral, legal or constitutional reason to have one set of rules for some people, and a different set for another group. It’s bigotry, no matter how you slice it. Bigotry and self-obsessed Elitism.

Jan 04, 2013 2:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

KbUsch wrote:
“Cardinal Francis George’s assertion that same-sex marriage undermines the “natural family” between a man and a woman is an empirical assertion that can be tested in the real world.”

It is already tested, and proven true. Mixed-sex marriages produce natural families in their droves, everyday, all over the world. Same-sex marriages have yet to produce a single natural family.

McBob08 wrote:
“there is absolutely no logical, reasonable, moral, legal or constitutional reason to have one set of rules for some people, and a different set for another group.”

While that is true, it is only part of the problem. In many parts of the world, same-sex unions do have the same rights as traditional marriages, so rights is not the issue. The issue is what to call it.

The church and a large portion of the population thing ‘marriage’ should retain its traditional meaning of man+woman; gay rights supporters want to expand semantic field to include same-sex couples.

My own view… I can support the campaign for equal rights, but going beyond that to change the idea of ‘marriage’ is just activism, trying to force a minority world view onto the majority.

From a linguistic perspective, trying to change language through politics rarely works. People will just use ‘marriage’ and ‘gay marriage’ instead.

Jan 04, 2013 3:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
JeanneTomlin wrote:

@KbUsch I couldn’t care less what YOU call it as long as I have the legal right to marry. And rights very much are the issue as well as society at large telling gays, most especially gay youths, that there is something wrong with their very existence since they are excluded from the most basic of human relationships–that of loving and having a permanent, recognized relationship.

Jan 04, 2013 3:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
susette wrote:

If this law were to threaten conservatives, I am sorry for them. They should be steadfast in their faith and let freedom ring. Our constitution ensures equality and justice for all As well, don’t forget, as freedom of religion and the persuit of happiness. Get over yourselves. Equal protection is for everyone. Not just those you endorse as politically correct.

Jan 04, 2013 7:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
jdl51 wrote:

If the religious right wants people to have less gay sex, let them marry.

Jan 04, 2013 12:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.